The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World
Abstract
The Right to Know is a timely and compelling consideration of a vital question: What information should governments and other powerful organizations disclose? Excessive secrecy corrodes democracy, facilitates corruption, and undermines good public policymaking, but keeping a lid on military strategies, personal data, and trade secrets is crucial to the protection of the public interest. Over the past several years, transparency has swept the world. India and South Africa have adopted groundbreaking national freedom of information laws. China is on the verge of promulgating new openness regulations that build on the successful experiments of such major municipalities as Shanghai. From Asia to Africa to Europe to Latin America, countries are struggling to overcome entrenched secrecy and establish effective disclosure policies. More than seventy now have or are developing major disclosure policies or laws. But most of the world's nearly 200 nations do not have coherent disclosure laws; implementation of existing rules often proves difficult; and there is no consensus about what disclosure standards should apply to the increasingly powerful private sector. As governments and corporations battle with citizens and one another over the growing demand to submit their secrets to public scrutiny, they need new insights into whether, how, and when greater openness can serve the public interest, and how to bring about beneficial forms of greater disclosure. The Right to Know distills the lessons of many nations' often bitter experience and provides careful analysis of transparency's impact on governance, business regulation, environmental protection, and national security. Its powerful lessons make it a critical companion for policymakers, executives, and activists, as well as students and scholars seeking a better understanding of how to make information policy serve the public interest.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Indignation or resignation: The implications of transparency for societal accountability
Bauhr, M., & Grimes, M. (2014) · Governance · doi:10.1111/gove.12033 · Cited by 524
Organizational Transparency: Conceptualizations, Conditions, and Consequences
Albu, O. B., & Flyverbom, M. (2019) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/0007650316659851 · Cited by 361
Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework
Biermann, F., & Gupta, A. (2011) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.008 · Cited by 339
Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen, S., Bäckstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M. M., Bulkeley, H., Cashore, B., Clapp, J., Folke, C., et al. (2012) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.014 · Cited by 256
Dingwerth, K., & Eichinger, M. (2010) · Global Environmental Politics · doi:10.1162/glep_a_00015 · Cited by 234
Metadata
- Venue
- Columbia University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Columbia University Press
- Published
- 2007-12-31
- OpenAlex
- W1606554598
- Cited by
- 327
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.79
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7312/flor14158
- The paper
- The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World. (2007). Columbia University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.7312/flor14158
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.